/ 24 February 2023

Multi-polar world does not mean being in favour of Putin

Tank Getty
Destruction: A tank hit by Nato forces in the LIbyan desert. Nato’s 2011 campaign in the country left it in chaos, with thousands of civilians dead. Photo: Andrew Chittock/Getty Images

Around the anniversary of the war in Ukraine it’s useful to step back and see it in a wider frame.

It should go without saying that this war, like all wars, is a horrific thing and that all parties that are responsible for instigating it, and for not bringing it to a swift end, are morally culpable. 

It is vital that all possible actions to bring the war to a quick end are explored. In view of the stalemate on the battlefield, and the real risks to humanity if the war is escalated, negotiations are urgent. But while Russia has expressed a willingness to negotiate, the United States has not shown a similar interest. This is deeply unfortunate.

It is widely understood across the political spectrum that the war devastating Ukraine is a proxy war between Russia, on one side, and the United States, its European allies and their shared but US-dominated military instrument Nato, on the other. 

Russia’s President Vladimir Putin, of course, is a right-wing authoritarian nationalist who runs a kleptocratic state. He is a reprehensible figure. But the US and Nato are also extremely problematic. 

The US is the most violent state on the planet and has invaded and bombed numerous countries. It certainly has far more blood on its hands than Putin. Nato claims to promote peace and security in Europe and North America but has also left a trail of destruction in its wake. 

Nato was founded during the Cold War between the West and the Soviet Union. However, since the end of the Cold War, it has repeatedly intervened in countries around the world in the name of “promoting democracy and human rights”. 

In actuality, these interventions have been motivated by the desire to advance American interests and maintain its dominance of the global economic and political system.

One of the worst instances of this was Nato’s campaign in Libya in 2011. In the name of protecting civilians from the authoritarian regime of Muammar Gaddafi, Nato launched a bombing campaign that smashed much of the country’s infrastructure and left thousands of civilians dead. 

The aftermath was not a flourishing of democracy. On the contrary, the destruction of Gaddafi’s regime created a power vacuum and extremist groups very quickly stepped into it. This plunged the country into a chaotic and, ultimately, disastrous situation. Gaddafi was a noxious leader but Nato made things far worse.

The part of our instinctively pro-Western commentariat that rightly recognises Putin’s failings, but cannot see the damage that the US and Nato have done across the world, is completely out of sync with sentiment across much of the global south. Many of the leading countries in the global south, including all of the Brics countries, have remained neutral with regard to this war because, while they might decry Russia’s invasion, they cannot align themselves with the US and Nato, both of which have shown a willingness to illegally attack other countries, such as Iraq and Libya. 

When our commentariat singles out the South African position as if it is a unique moral perversion, instead of putting it into the wider context of the positions taken by many countries in the global south, it completely fails to understand the realities of global geo-politics.

During the Cold War, there were two major powers in the world, the US and the Soviet Union. The Third World, as it was then known, tried to develop itself as a third power. It made some progress in the 1960s but by the 1980s was smashed, with the World Bank having played a particularly damaging role in instituting a neocolonial economic order. After the collapse of the Soviet Union, and the destruction of the power of the Third World, the US was left as the sole global power.

But, in recent years, China has been gaining power and Russia has shown itself unwilling to bow to US authority. For many in the global south, this raises the possibility of a new multi-polar world emerging, a prospect many look forward to.

There are a number of reasons for this. One is that in the current unipolar world, the US often acts unilaterally and in its own self-interest, without regard for the interests of other countries. This has led to numerous conflicts and instability, such as the war in Iraq and the ongoing tension with Iran and China. 

In a multi-polar world, no single power would be able to dominate, and there would be greater incentive for co-operation and compromise between the centres of power.

It is also argued that a multi-polar world would allow greater diversity and pluralism. In the current, uni-polar world, American cultural and economic hegemony is often seen as the only model for success and this has led to a homogenisation of cultures and a lack of respect for different ways of life. 

In a multi-polar world, there would be greater diversity and respect for different cultures and ways of life, and no one culture or economic model would be seen as the only path to success.

Many take the view that a multi-polar world could promote greater democracy and accountability. 

In the current uni-polar world, the US often acts unilaterally and without regard for international law or the opinions of other countries. This has led to a lack of accountability and transparency in global affairs. 

In a multi-polar world, no single power would be able to act with impunity and there would be greater incentive for transparency and accountability in global affairs.

No serious person making the argument for multi-polarity thinks that the rivals to US power are entirely benign. This is a straw-man version of the argument for multi-polarity. What the advocates for multi-polarity are actually arguing is that a break in the power of the US would enable more states to pursue their own developmental trajectories with a diminished risk of US-led or -backed invasions, bombing campaigns or coups. 

It is also argued, often drawing on the experience of the last Cold War, that when superpowers are competing for influence, that poorer and weaker countries can effectively play them off against each other to seek the best deals and as much autonomy as possible. 

Former Zambian president Kenneth Kaunda was brilliant at this and many countries in the global south feel that they have lost significant room to manoeuvre since the end of the bi-polar world of the period between World War II and the collapse of the Soviet Union. 

Being for a multi-polar world does not mean being for Putin or his invasion. But it also does not mean being for the US and Nato. This is why the leading countries in the global south have been pushing for a negotiated end to the war with the most recent proposals for an off-ramp coming from China. 

It is important to understand all this because, in the absence of a proper understanding, all we are left with is a commentariat denouncing the position of the South African state as an inexplicable moral failing. 

Of course, there are important criticisms of the idea of multi-polarity and they should be ventilated and discussed carefully. 

But if we don’t even bother to understand the thinking driving the position of the most of the leading countries in the global south on the war in Ukraine, we can’t begin to have a rational conversation.

Dr Imraan Buccus is a senior research associate at ASRI and post-doctoral fellow at DUT.

The views expressed are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of the Mail & Guardian.